I’ve read some assessments of history that say Ford did the right thing by pardoning Nixon, saving the nation from a criminal trial of a president. But on the other side, I have to wonder if Richard Nixon had been made an example of, perhaps the Reagan and current administrations wouldn’t have felt they could get away with such murder. Right now they’re grabbing any lawyers with warm bodies to cover their now-exposed rears, because the rubber-stamp congress they relied on is no more.
Related
Mitt Romney Thinks He’s Better Than You
Biden
A Flaw In Your Logic, Sir
Of particular relevance was the article of impeachment dealing with the bombing of Cambodia. Had a president paid a price for that, we might not have had such a cavalier attitude about attacking countries without provokation.
Other than jail (and that never would have happened) how else could Nixon have paid a price? He resigned in disgrace and was ostracized from public affairs for 20 years. Ironically it was President Clinton who accepted his counsel and aided in the rehabilitation of Nixon’s image before his death more so than Bush I and Reagan combined — to President Clinton’s credit, I might add.
Ford was in an impossible position. If he pardons Nixon and tries to get the country to move on, then he is perceived as letting Nixon off the hook. If he doesn’t pardon him, then it is Nixon and Watergate 24/7 for the next 2+ years. While no pardon may have been the safer political move, I think Ford has to receive credit for making a decision that was certainly not in his own best political interest. I doubt any politician today, Democrat or Republican, would be capable of not putting their own self-interest first.
He wasn’t just spared a criminal trial, he was spared a criminal investigation. Watergate was just the tiny tip of the iceberg of Nixon’s wrongdoing. Bad precedent.
How is it a bad precedent? We have had nothing but criminal investigations, some warranted, many not, ever since Watergate. Certainly Watergate set in motion the political culture we see today with the ever-escalating partisan politics of “gotcha” where decisions are made based on party first and country last.
Whether or not Nixon had his day in court doesn’t change the price he paid (rightfully, of course) or more importantly, the price the country paid, and continues to pay.
What price did Nixon pay? He was allowed to claim that it was political pressure that took him out, not his own crimes. He was allowed to re-habilitate himself; he was allowed wealth and political stature that he did not deserve.
Ford proved that the most important thing to Republicans is the coverup and the pay off, not the rule of law, not the constitution, not the principle that no man is above the law.
Thanks to Nixon’s free pass, Reagan was able to get away with Iran-Contra and Bush is getting away with murder.
There was no closure for Nixon’s crimes; the was no application of justice. Nixon, like Pinochet, was buried an “honorable man” which neither was.
We have had nothing but criminal investigations, some warranted, many not, ever since Watergate.
That’s in large part due to the corruption of our government by powerful special interests.
“In a democracy the ignorant and meddlesome outsiders, the general population, have to be kept from interfering. They can be spectators but not participants.” - Noam Chomsky
Our “elected” leadership is accountable to no one but their paymasters.
One can argue that Ford made the wrong decision. However, no one can disparage his intent.
After Nixon’s resignation, the nation was weary of Watergate. The endgame in Vietnam was still playing out. The economy was sinking and inflation rising.
There were, in short, many issues that seemed more important at the time than airing all of Nixon’s crimes.
Ford chose his path for honorable reasons. If he erred, he did so with the nation’s best interests in mind.
I hope the first thing President Obama does is pardon Bush.
I can see either argument. Watergate itself was but a third-rate burglary, mere spitting on the sidewalk compared to what other stuff Nixon was doing, as well as the Democrats (COINTELPRO), which is probably why the Wise Men of Washington have been so pleased by the pardon. If nobody is going down for this stuff, then a pardon is just as well.
OTOH, Nixon WAS the worst offender of this bunch. The counter-argument is that making an example of Tricky Dick is a deterrent, far more so than mere disgrace.
Like I said, I can see either side. Nixon resigned three weeks before I was born, so fretting about this seems weird to me.
Honorable? Hmmmm…No.
Ford pardoned Nixon because they were close compadres.
What was “best” for the nation had nothing to do with it. In fact, whatever other issues beset the country at the time (I was 8, so I remember the ballooning inflation, gas crisis, and so on), few people, not even 8 year old children (again, that would be me), forgot Ford’s whipping around after only a month in office and pardoning Nixon. The message was loud and clear and yes, it reverberated right through Reagan and on up to Chimpy today, president’s and their party are above the law. Christ, Nixon had the whole illegal bombing of Cambodia hanging over him, not to mention his machinations that effectively extended the Vietnam war for several years, all in a bid to ensure he held onto power. Ford also held open the door for the brutal assault on East Timor which resulted in thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands dead. Let’s face it, America’s history is replete with president’s who treated their office as a license to flout the law. Sadly that contempt often brought with it a blatant disregard for life, or non-American life, at least. Ford’s pardon dragged an ugly secret into the light and simply expanded the boundaries of how grossly a sitting president can expect to abuse his power before the masses haul him away. Apparently, given Bush’s constant disregard for international and domestic law, those boundaries have pretty effectively been erased.
The biggest joke of all is getting people to pinpoint what it was Nixon did that was so wrong. Try to explain it to your kids versus what other presidents did. In a nutshell, he used the power of the Presidency to try and thwart an investigation. Is there any adult here who believes other presdients have not tried to hamper and thwart investigations of their actions. Is there any one here who believes other pressdients have not used their power (IRS audits) to get the opposition. Nixon did wrong like Scooter Libby did wrong, but spare ne the ‘watershed of history’ BS.
Dugger’s quest to be known as the most deranged, irrational right-wing ultra-partisan continues apace.
Hey, Nimmer. Go chomp on some bangers and mash. And I resent the ‘irrational’ part of that diatribe.
“Dugger’s quest …”
Hey man, Frank’s back. He’s really got to step it up now if he wants to go for the crown …
The biggest joke of all is getting people to pinpoint what it was Nixon did that was so wrong.
How hard is it to understand the concept of using government assets to spy on your political enemies?
Try to explain it to your kids versus what other presidents did. In a nutshell, he used the power of the Presidency to try and thwart an investigation.
Try to explain that in context of Bill Clinton being impeached for telling a fib of no consequence to the nation about an event of no consequence to the nation in a lawsuit that was settled out of court and the deposition thrown away.
Nixon is quoted as saying he plans to use the power of the presidency to “screw our political enemies.” He acted on that threat, sending the IRS after people who opposed him.
Nixon authorized the use of “hush money,” whose source remains a mystery. Nixon claimed that he would have had no problem raising a million dollars, in cash. The source of this money should have been investigated at trial.
John Dean: “I told the President that there was no money to pay these individuals to meet their demands. He asked me how much it would cost. I told him that I could only estimate, that it might be as high as a million dollars or more. He told me that that was no problem, and he also looked over at Haldeman and repeated the statement.”
Remember, Google is your friend.
Bahh, repack. Your explanation of what Nixon actually did is to cite treatment of Bill Clinton two decades plus thereafter? Kinda makes my point. You do know Nixon came first, right?
What was the horrible thing Nixon did - that other presidents didn’t do or or come close to doing. I find people cannot addequately explain what it was that Nixon did that sets him apart - espcially those who cite him as as a horrible president.
“What was the horrible thing Nixon did - that other presidents didn’t do or or come close to doing.”
First off, there’s nothing more predictable, regular and expected than a conservative idiot defedning other conservatives by asserting that,”well, other people do it too. You’re just being biased.”
It’s as if Jack Abramoff is the innocent victim of biased prosecutors and vengeful democrats because of, you know, the Teapot Dome Scandal.
What golden shining principles you have, Fugs.
Second, there’s more predictable than a conservative idiot asserting “Others do it to” as the height of morality without actually naming the “others” or describing what it is that they have done which somehow justifies or diminishes all conservative malfeasance.
Nixon resigned because seriously abused the powersof the presidency, triggering a constitutional crisis, in an effort to cover up the activities of men who were on the GOP payroll while trying to subvert the integrity of the American election system through all manner of illegal activities.
But that’s no big deal because, well, some president at some other time did something else just like it or, and this is classic, “came close to doing.”
Came close to doing, Dugger? That’s awesome. Just awesome.
I don’t care what you resent, you just defended Richard Nixon. Rationality’s not in it.
“You do know Nixon came first, right?”
Oh, and this little jab is priceless.
Dugger, do you not realize that according to your logic every moron idiot right winger who ever has or ever will attack Clinton for trashing the dignity of the Oval Office is just overstating the case for ideological reasons because, afterall, what did Clinton do that other presidents didn’t or may have “come close to doing”?
Hell, Nixon’s behavior alone renders any hoopla over any Clinton scandal much ado about nothing.
You’re such an idiot.
If Nixon had committed murder, the righties would say “everyone does it”.
If Clinton had committed murder, the lefties would blame a right-wing conspiracy.
“If Clinton had committed murder, the lefties would blame a right-wing conspiracy.”
Oh mercy.
Was it not a bunch of right wing idiots who actually pushed the idea that the Clintons murdered Vince Foster as part of a vast left wing conspiracy?
You guys get dumber by the minute.
frame,
Get a grip. Life’s too short to warrant going ballistic every time you are confronted with something that doesn’t fit your pre-conceptions.
Given your typical predisposition to hyperventilate, I condense the meaningful part of your response down to “Nixon tried to steal an election.”
Thats simply not right. He tried to cover up the Watergate break-in - an action no one has been able to prove he knew about ahead of time. Thats it, bunkie. Thats your GD watershed of history.
Posecution rests your honor. Based on the scanty evdience produced buy the oppostion, we move to put Mr Nixon down as a minor violator no worse than most other presidints. And your honor, we would note sdame Mr Nixon was generallya liberal Republican and nor tgenerally beloved by the right wing of the party.
doesn’t fit your prejudices.
If someone were to ask of me the question I asked of the left -re Clinton (ie, ’splain it to your kid) I would say that we all trusted Mt Clinton to enforce all the laws and put bad peole in jail and he actually took advantage of that appears aht
“I condense the meaningful part of your response …”
And you even fucked that up.
Where did I assert or imply the Nixon did or was aware of anything beyond his own illegal obstruction of justice?
I’ll note for the record that you have yet to offer any behavior by a sitting president that somehow diminishes the gravity of Nixon’s crimes and his betrayal of his oath of office.
Care to offer anything up?
Clinton lied under oath to hide an affair with an intern.
Nixon obstructed justice on a variety of fronts, from the Saturday Massacre to destroying evidence, in order to protect a group of operatives involved a widespread, illegal campaign to undermine the integrity of the 1972 elections.
Yup, it’s the same damn thing.
War Crimes, murder, stealing elections, abuse of power, etc are not serious crimes in Dugger’s view.
Came close to doing, Dugger? That’s awesome. Just awesome.
You’re such an idiot.
You guys get dumber by the minute.
I guess the end of the year wouldn’t be complete without some of the insightful and thought provoking comments of Frameone.
Clinton embarrassed them. Stained their perception of their good American name, and that’s inexcusable. Worse yet, Clinton beat their clumsy attempts to take him down.
Some liberal media.
A little spying, graft, and corruption between friends, good old boys, and insiders is nothin’ for you to worry your little head over. It’s all being done for your protection.
“I guess the end of the year wouldn’t be complete without some of the insightful and thought provoking comments of Frameone.”
Yes, Jay because arguing that what Nixon did was no big deal because other presidents may have “come close” to doing it is, like, so thought provoking and insightful it makes me want to shoot myself.
Jesus you guys are all morons. One says something totally moronic and the other defends him because it isn’t nice to call stupid people stupid.
Yes, Jay because arguing that what Nixon did was no big deal because other presidents may have “come close” to doing it is, like, so thought provoking and insightful it makes me want to shoot myself.
Hey, a belated Christmas president for everybody!
Jesus you guys are all morons. One says something totally moronic and the other defends him because it isn’t nice to call stupid people stupid.
Aristotle would be jealous of your prose.
Christmas president? What rosy prose, Jay.
Please, if you will, tell us whether or not you agree with Dugger’s belief that Nixon’s malfeasance is no big deal because of what “other presidents didn’t do or or come close to doing.”
Christmas president? What rosy prose, Jay.
That’s called a spelling error jackass.
Please, if you will, tell us whether or not you agree with Dugger’s belief that Nixon’s malfeasance is no big deal because of what “other presidents didn’t do or or come close to doing.”
I’m not talking about Dugger. I’m talking about your propensity to just say the same shit over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Things usually seem to move along quite nicely until you and Nimrod appear and then fuck it up by being nothing but trolls.
And I’ve said all I am going to say. I know you like these pissing matches, but my leg is wet enough already and I’m not going to bore everybody.
“Things usually seem to move along quite nicely…And I’ve said all I am going to say.”
Classic. Yes, Jay things were going along quite nicely.
Dugger suggested that anyone who criticizes Nixon is an idelogue because, hey, everbody does it. What an awesomely insightful contribution to the discussion.
Of course you defend Dugger, not because you agree with him, but because I was being a big meanie. Indeed, you explicitly refuse engage with the actual content of Dugger’s statement, as I did, in the name of civility. Which, for some reason, is more important to you than not being stupid.
How awesome it would be if no one ever called Dugger a moron even though he says, you know, moronic things over and over again.
Los Angeles County is more dangerous than Baghdad? What an awesome and insightful conrtibution to the world of thought.
Nixon didn’t do anything that other presidents have done or “come close to doing”? What a perceptive and helpful take on history. Why the real crime is that he was forced to resign!
I can’t think of anything more helpful than establishing “But everybody does it” as the standard for all behavior and moral judgement. How wonderfully civil that would be.
Like a said, you’re a total fucking idiot.
Oh and Jay, I know you’ve said all your going to say — and really, what more could you possibly add — but I want to get one thing clear.
Dugger put forth an absurd criteria for moral judgement based on an assertion of fact made without reference to any actual evidence.
You’re defending that as an “insightful and thought provoking” contribution to the discussion in contrast to my obvious barbarity.
Just to be clear …
The most amazing thing about this thread that the lefties really don’t what they’re talking about, but that doesn’t stop them. People who proudly proclaim that they were 8 years old when Nixon resigned claim to have understood the politics of the time.
Some clown from Britain claims Ford didn’t do anything for America, and neither did Nixon.
Frameone, as usual, says, “Aaawk! Aaawk! Moron! Idiot Idiot! Idiotic moron! Moronic idiot!”
Consider:
25 Years in the House
Served on the Warren Commission
Granted refuge to 125,000 Vietnamese refugees after Congress abandoned that country.
Agreed to be the Vice - President for a scandal - ridden President
Pardoned Nixon at a tremendous cost to his own political future
Infuriated conservatives by pushing the US into the Helsinki Accords, thus sealing the fate of the Baltic states
In two years, almost made up that deficit and came within a hair’s breadth of beating Jimmy Carter.
And, oh yeah, Eagle Scout, star Quarterback in College, and lawyer, followed by 4 years in the Pacific in the Navy.
What have you whiners and moaners done for your country?
About 99% of you have never served in public office — elected or otherwise — nor have you ever been in the military.
Walk a mile in his shoes? You couldn’t walk a yard in his shoes.
Why don’t you all have a steaming hot cup of STFU?
Gerald Ford, #48 (retired) was an All-American center at the University of Michigan!
You’re right, Rory…
I guess he was a bum after all..
And you were President of ??
“What have you whiners and moaners done for your country?”
Wow. Just wow. With the clock ticking down to New Year’s Eve, Frank gets it in under the wire:
The Most Egregious Non-Sequitor of 2006.
Congratulations, Frank. Just too classic.
Of course you defend Dugger, not because you agree with him, but because I was being a big meanie.
No, you weren’t being a big meaning. You were being a complete prick as you always do. But then again, I’ve experience that before. People who talk the most shit (like you) are the same kind of people that can’t say the same things in the presence of an actual person. And I’m not talking about “Say it to my face!” kind of stuff, but just a cowardice that allows itself to turn into Internet boasting - the kind that allows a person such as yourself to make themselves feel superior by calling other people idiots all the time.
Which, for some reason, is more important to you than not being stupid.
When do you stop being stupid?
How awesome it would be if no one ever called Dugger a moron even though he says, you know, moronic things over and over again.
Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
Like a said, you’re a total fucking idiot.
And guess what? I could be a brain dead vegetable and STILL be smarter than you.
You’re defending that as an “insightful and thought provoking” contribution to the discussion in contrast to my obvious barbarity.
Nah. I’m just wondering why you cannot refute what a person says without resorting to name calling and baby shit. You’re like a schoolyard bully. You talk tough, but in reality you’re nothing but a fucking coward - intellectually. That’s why you call people idiots and use crap like, “Awesome. Just awesome.”
Like I said, the safety of a blog comments section gives you the security you seek to do it. You’re a child.
Ar revoir.
“Like I said, the safety of a blog comments section gives you the security you seek to do it. You’re a child.”
But Jay, you have yet to actually engage the substance of my disagreement with Dugger at all. Indeed, you have explicitly refused to engage with the substance of the debate in question preferring to attack my style of argument. Why is that, I wonder?
My disagreement with Dugger is clear: Nixon’s malfeasance cannot and should not be diminished by appeal to the “Everybody does it” defense, an ethical position so lame on its face that only someone with a deeply impaired sense of right and wrong would ever assert it. Neither is it exageration to state that Nixon’s malfeasance puts him in a unique category of American political scoundrel. The man was trying to obstruct an investigation into an widespread, orchestrated campaign to undermine the intergrity of the 1972 elections. Is that something every president has done or “come close” to doing, whatever the hell “come close to doing” means?
But Dugger goes even further by refusing to back his claim that every president has obstructed justice or “come close” with any actual facts, he doesn’t even bother to name another president.
I made both of these criticisms above, repeatedly, but Dugger refused to address them, preferring instead to deliberately mischaracterize what I wrote inorder to attack his own mischaracterization.
Then you come along and attacked me for calling Dugger an idiot. Dugger is an idiot. So are you — not the least of all because after saying that you were done with the argument and that you were not going to “bore everybody” you went ahead and did it anyway.
frameone, will you ever stop?
You have become a parody of yourself.
“Too classic.”
Indeed.
frameone, will you ever stop?
You have become a parody of yourself.
“Too classic.”
Indeed.
This is exactly what frameone is talking about. You provide no arguements to support the claims you and your ilk pull out of your ass and instead use ad hominium attacks on people who know what they’re talking about.
But since you provide no arguement to combat, I’ll just give you some parting advice: Your time would be alot better spent telling kids to “Turn down that music” and “Get offa your lawn”.
Thanks Zython.
You know, Frank and Jay, it’s very simple. I called Dugger and idiot because he wrote something idiotic. It was this:
“What was the horrible thing Nixon did - that other presidents didn’t do or or come close to doing. ”
The simple part is whether or not you agree with Dugger’s sentiment here. Do you?
Remind us again what country Ford was elected to be president? He was appointed because he was one of the “good ol boyz who could be relied upon to pardon the crook. Ford was a mediocre president, slightly worse than Carter, who had limited accomplishments such as Whip Inflation Now, stagflation, recession and to New York City, Drop Dead.
You tout his Warren Commission duties, but he falsified some of the information
In 1997 the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) released a document that revealed that Ford had altered the first draft of the report to read: “A bullet had entered the base of the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine.” Ford had elevated the location of the wound from its true location in the back to the neck to support the single bullet theory.[20] The original first draft of the Warren Commission Report stated that a bullet had entered Kennedy’s “back at a point slightly above the shoulder and to the right of the spine.”
This man main claim to fame was to cover up Republican crimes and corruption thereby enabling further Republican abuse of power and corruption. Your silly defense of him depends on the ad hominem attacks typical of your ilk.
No wonder you are rejected by the American electorate.
My point was that even the accomplishments you seem to find inconsequential were great in my book, and by the measurement of many people.
This stuff you’re talking about is in my humble opinion a nasty game, speaking ill of the dead, nothing more.
You certainly have provided no analysis, no contribution to thought or political science in re: Gerald Ford, beyond “Pardoned Nixon = ‘bad’”
By the way, even my amateur historical sense tells me that this is WAY too soon to be talking about Ford’s place in history.
Even Cindy Sheehan has an opinion:
See? Everyone has one…
However idiotic.
“However idiotic.”
People who talk the most shit (like you) are the same kind of people that can’t say the same things in the presence of an actual person. And I’m not talking about “Say it to my face!” kind of stuff, but just a cowardice that allows itself to turn into Internet boasting - the kind that allows a person such as yourself to make themselves feel superior by calling other people idiots all the time.
frameone: You are kidding, aren’t you?
Calling people idiots all the time? Me? You call someone an idiot more times in a thread, than I do in a month, maybe a year.
And I didn’t even call the benighted Ms. Sheehan an idiot, as you have called Dugger, Jay, Dr Pedro and myself a hundred times or more. I was at least civilized enough to call her statement idiotic.
Meanwhile, you and your lefty buddies can malign the dead with impunity behind your keyboard, and dare to speak to me of calling someone an idiot.
You should have issued a monitor warning, really.
Nah. I’m just wondering why you cannot refute what a person says without resorting to name calling and baby shit. You’re like a schoolyard bully. You talk tough, but in reality you’re nothing but a fucking coward - intellectually.
I keep thinking this forum is almost like the WWE (with Oliver as Vince McMahon).
Tell me, how does one declare a winner in a pissing contest?
Hey,you! Where’s frameone, and what did you do with him? Why are you posting things using his name?
I’ve been calling frameone (who obviously is not you) an intellectual bully and coward for over a year. He has never answered me beyond, “Oh, too classic” and the tedious and monotonous “Moron” and “Idiot”.
Now, suddenly, he, or you — Lord, this is confusing — is saying those things about me?
What is going on here? I will say this:: If I thought this meant that you, or he — damn, this is frustrating! — were turning over a new leaf, I would be glad to admit to anything, however outrageous, to get you to stop acting like the Scut Farkas of Olivers’s “Christmas Story.”
Frank, you are obviously not paying attention.
And Frank, can I ask you a simple question?
You wrote this:
Way too soon? He president from 1974 to 1977. He’s been ouf of office for 30 years. Just how long does one have to wait to judge someone’s performance in conservative circles?
We hear again and again that it’s too soon to judge Bush and his policies even as they are failing before our eyes. Now 30 years is not enough time to judge Ford’s presidency?
And at the same time you and Jay are defending Dugger who has pronounced that Nixon cannot be judged harshly because he just did what everyone else did.
I guess 30 years is not enough time to adequately asses a presidency but 35 years is just enough time to see the full banality of a conservative’s crimes.
You guys slay me, absolutlely slay me.
You’re the stupidest crew of morons I’ve ever ancountered.
Well, happy new year everyone.
D*mn. A lot of crap went on while I was gone.
When I read some of my sh*ttily typed posts ex post facto, I wince.
But my point stands proudly. We were talking about presidents’ places in history. That involves a comparison, nicht wahr? And logically, we have to compare presidents to presidents. Thus, if what the “Trickster” did is not very different from what other presidents did, then setting him up as some sort of stand-alone, worst-of-all- time presidents is BS - pure and simple. That’s why I suggest you take my test: try and explain to a child what Nixon really - really did that was so bad. Somebody mentioned a constitutional crisis. That doesn’t compute. Presidents and Congress are ‘at war’ all the time about the limits of their respective powers. Is there any one here who thinks most presidents have not used the power of their office to ‘get’ the opposition: IRS audits, etc. or that Congress hasn’t used its powers to get the executive: investigations etc (remember the aptly named Gary Sick, the October Surprise).
Note, I’m not saying Nixon did not do wrong - but merely that that wrong was not all that siginificant. Think what you want to of Nixon (he was too liberal for me), but when it comes down to plain talk and documenting actual harm done, nothing siginificant shows up.
“Note, I’m not saying Nixon did not do wrong - but merely that that wrong was not all that siginificant.”
Dugger, you suggest that what is required to prove this point is some kind of comparison but then you offer none yourself. Why is that?
Where are the supposedly myriad examples of other presidents doing what Nixon did or “came close” to doing?
Nixon used the power of the presidency to obstruct an investigation into illegal activities designed to undermine the integrity of the 1972 elections. Obstruction of justice is a serious crime. Have all presidents attempted to obstruct justice? Who? When?
Simply suggesting that , oh well, we all know they do it, wink, wink nudge nudge, hardly rises to the level of evidence or even intelligent argument. It’s sheer sophistry.
So you suggest a comparison but offer something else entirely. Your “test” is not a comparison at all, it is indeed, totally ludicrous: “try and explain to a child what Nixon really - really did that was so bad.”
This is now the standard for historical judgement?
Your point does indeed stand, afterall you keep repeating it, but it stands as a shining example of your idiocy.
“Try and explain to a child what Nixon really - really did that was so bad.”
You know, this really baffles me. Nixon broke the law by obsturcting justice, Dugger. Should we tell children that when presidents break the law it’s no big deal because “All president’s do it.”
Wow. What character. What principles.
“What do you expect when you sue the president?” senior IRS official Paul Breslan told Judicial Watch, the Washington-based legal watchdog group that had filed 50-plus legal actions against the Clinton administration and subsequently found itself in the IRS’s cross hairs. ”
In addition Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Paula Jones, Juanita Borderick, and Gennifer Flowers were all audited by the IRS.
Billy Dale (remember him) was audited.
‘The IRS’ investigation is a clear act of political censorship. It is apparent that the current administration wants to suppress voices that oppose the war in Iraq and the Bush administration at large. This isn’t the first time an organization has been attacked for its views. After Julian Bond, the NAACP’s chairman, made negative remarks about the president in a speech at the group’s national convention, the NAACP received a letter from the IRS requesting information related to the speech.’
This all with a minimal amount of Googling.
So Clinton and Bush, it appears, used a government agency under his command for partisan poltiical purposes. Nixon used a government agency to try and cover up an investigation of an investigation of an illegal partisan political investigation.
You may be and a huge diffrence between the two sets of actions. I don’t. The basic proincipal is all the smae: using a gov. org. for partisan political purposes.
frameone: President Ford died days ago.
Nixon used the power of the presidency to obstruct an investigation into illegal activities designed to undermine the integrity of the 1972 elections.
Question 1. Which “Illegal activities”?
2. In what way were they “designed to undermine the integrity of the 1972 elections”?
No one answered those questions in two summers of investigations — but I’m sure you can, right?
And, please don’t use the juvenile tactic of telling of me that if I don’t know, I’m an idiot.
And you called Dugger an idiot already.
Time it took you go from criticizing me for embedding an insult inside a comment to actually doing it to me == less than 2 days.
Congratulations on waiting so long.
“The basic proincipal is all the smae: using a gov. org. for partisan political purposes.”
I think you’ve shown a remarkable lack of principles, basic and otherwise, here Dugger.
You apparently forgot what you wrote above:
Um, Dugger, all you’ve done here to defend Nixon is to site what Clinton did two decades plus thereafter. You do know Nixon came first?
What you’re now saying is that Nixon’s actions in 1972 are retroactively absolved/diminished because of what Clinton and Bush did over three decades later. Although even here, Clinton and Bush didn’t rise to the same level of criminality — using the office of president to obstruct justice — but rather acted in some vaguely similar way.
What you are now saying is that it was correct to excoriate Nixon for his actions right up until Clinton was elected, after which, Nixon had to be put into the proper “perspective.”
That’s an astonishingly flexible sense of right and wrong you have there Dugger. And in order to even apply in this instance you have to engage an equally astonishing degree of euphemism, replacing “obstruction of justice” with “partisan political purposes.”
It’s astonishing, simply astonishing that you think of yourself as hoilding some kind of moral highground just because you use astericks when you write “fuck.”
And Frank, if we held to your standard timeline of when its appropriate to assess historical importance we’d just now be getting around to judging whether fighting WWII was the right call. What a total moron.
“Nixon used a government agency to try and cover up an investigation of an investigation of an illegal partisan political investigation.”
UNpacking this bullshit would take a lifetime so maybe you could clarify Dugger, which “partisan political investigation” was illegal?
By God. My typing still stinks. There goes that resolution.
But, anyway, you’ve got it bass-ackwards, per usual, frame. The exact point is not how right or wrong it is, but that most, maybe all presidents do some variation of the same thing: use the power of the office for partisan political purposes. With a ten second Google, I showed you evidence of Bubba and Bush. So if sanctimonious progressives are going to make the case that Nixon is this watershed bad/evil president, he will have to be differentiated from the competition - something no one here, you included, has come close to doing.
And you know what? You won’t be able to do it. You are unable to think without your emotions getting scrambled. We all know when the discussion gets a little deep, you get insecure and resort to vulgar personal tirades. Thats when we know we gotcha’!
All hail Milhouse!!!
“The exact point is not how right or wrong it is, but that most, maybe all presidents do some variation of the same thing: use the power of the office for partisan political purposes.”
Astonishing. Simply astonishing. Dugger you yourself raised the question right and wrong when you wrote this:
Your whole point in the beginning was that what Nixon did was not that bad in comparison to the behavior of others. But now you’re telling us that degrees of right and wrong aren’t important at all.
Of course you haven’t actually shown that Clinton or Bus or any president for that matter have abused the power of the presidency in the manner that Nixon did. You’ve just swapped around a few euphimisms and vaguaries as I noted above.
But then again we get a full view of just how moronic you are with this passage:
For your education Dugger here’s a good definition of “watershed”:
I ask again, you do know that Nixon came first, right?
If you want to argue that Nixon’s behavior wasn’t a “watershed,” which it indeed was, you’ll have to compare his actions to presidential behavior before Nixon.
But setting aside this glaring idiocy, your argument, en toto, so far is that Nixon didn’t do anything that horrible (even though “how right and wrong” doesn’t matter) because Clinton and Bush did things that are sort of like what Nixon did (but not that bad).
Brilliant.
“…you get insecure and resort to vulgar personal tirades.”
Dugger, I started out calling you an idiot because your argument has been idiotic since the beginning. Now that you’ve completely changed your argument — from “What was the horrible thing Nixon did..” to “The exact point is not how right or wrong it is” — you are, simply, an even bigger idiot.
frame
I’ve never claimed the presidents did exactly the same thing as Nixon. I’ve really never claimed what Nixon did was not a little worse. I have claimed that there isn’t that much difference between what Nixon did and other presidents have done - especially not enough difference so as to separate Nixon from the pack as a watershed bad president. You have not addressed that point.
By the same token, I believe Clinton was the weakest moral character to ever populate the White House, but that doesn’t interfere with my judgement of his overall successful presidency. Likewise Nixon’s iota more of ‘crossing the line’ shouldn’t obscure what was overall not a bad presidency.
And when you verbally assualt the posters here, frame, does it make you feel good about yourself? If they (we) really are idiots shouldn’t it be apparent by now - so that you wouldn’t have to screech it every time somebody says something that makes you mad? Yet, repeatedly, you call names. In your regular life, do you abuse the people around you who disagree with you or are you just quiet and say nothing - only venting your Walter Mitty-ish anti-intellectual rage on the anonymous Internet?
“You have not addressed that point.”
But I have.
First of all, you are using the behavior of Clinton and Bush to argue that Nixon’s behavior wasn’t a watershed. Given the definition of watershed that makes no sense whatsoever. It’s really mind boggling how you can accuse me of “anti-intellectualism” when your entire “proof” is based on such a temporal absurdity.
It goes without saying that Watergate had a huge impact on American political culture, not to mention the actual laws of the land. To suggest that the resignation of a sitting president under investigation is not a watershed moment is simply hack work of the highest order.
At the same time, please
review the articles of impeachment lined up against Nixon before he resigned.
You can compare them point for point with the
articles drawn up against Clinton.
There is really no comparison. Clinton was charged with lying under oath and attempting to sway the testimony of witnesses. Not one charge has anything remotely to do with abusing the powers of the presidency (although you could argue that offering someone a job for thier silence rises close but even that’s a stretch).
To suggest that the comparison would reveal that Nixon was only one “iota” more cuorrpt than Clinton is pure right wing idiocy.
I will conclude simply by noting that you have change dyour argument with practically every post.
You even went so far as to attack a commentor for bringin Clinton in the discussion — “You do know that Nixon came first right?” — only to then base your entire argument on Clinton’s behavior.
I guess that’s what you do when “the discussion gets a little deep” and “you get insecure.”
And trust me, it is abundantly evident that you, Jay, Frank, Pedro et. al. are indeed total idiots. Only everytime I think we’ve plumbed the depths of your idiocy you, each one in his turn, seem to reach deep inside yourselves to dredge up ever darker globs of stupidity (Witness Frank’s assertion that 30 years after he left office it’s still too soon to judge Ford as a president).
Really, it’s sad.
frameone: You pathetic freak. what’s sad is how you think you’re so fucking intelligent, when you can’t engage in a harmless political debate with anyone without calling them an idiot or a moron.
Can’t you question anyone?
Can’t you inquire as to the substance of a person’s comment?
Or are your “powers of intellect” so binary as to be limited to “you have not completely agreed with me” versus “you are an idiot.”
Now that is sad.
Find a hole and climb in it, Scut.
BTW, dimwit, I NEVER asserted that thirty years after his death it was too soon to judge Ford as a President.
He has is own library, and they have been studying his life for nearly thirty years.
Are they done?
That’s what you might have learned if you had asked.
But frameone doesn’t ask — frameone knows.
And I won’t even entertain any stupid attempt to tell me that’s not what I meant.
You can just kiss my ass.
frameone’s answer: “Too classic”
says the Great Karnak.
“There is really no comparison. Clinton was charged with lying under oath and attempting to sway the testimony of witnesses.”
I’ll say it again. The key here is the difference between what Nixon did and what other presidents did.
Re Clinton, Judge Wright said:
“Sanctions must be imposed, not only to redress the president’s misconduct, but to deter others who might themselves consider emulating the president of the United States by engaging in misconduct that undermines the integrity of the judicial system,” she said.
Now if we take Judge Wright at her word (’conduct undermining the judicial system’)and if we concede Clinton was the number one law enforcement officer in the land, you are going to tell me there’s a huge diffrence betwen Clinton and Nixon. And I say CLinton had a successful presdiency and Nixon one a little less os.
“Can’t you inquire as to the substance of a person’s comment?”
Yes, because everything tells me that there is a massive untapped resevoir of brilliance lying just beneath such sharp observations as this: “this is WAY too soon to be talking about Ford’s place in history.”
Dugger, once again, first, you are comparing Nixon’s behavior to Clinton’s for some kind of retroactive absolution which is, aside from totally bizarre, totally idiotic. I guess you still haven’t looked up what watershed means. It only takes a few minutes on Google.
Second, both Clinton and Nixon acted rephrensibly but Nixon’s malfeasance was far grander, more far reaching and more corrosive to American political culture and American culture in general than anything Clinton did.
Third, what your argument comes down to is that no one should be judged harshly for somthing everybody does (even having failed to show that Clinton did anything near Nixon did). That’s a rather pathetic moral system don’t you think?
“Sanctions must be imposed, not only to redress the president’s misconduct”
Oh and do pray tell what sanctions were imposed on Nixon to redress his conduct?
Nixon was forced to resign.
And you conveniently glossed over the whole point: WHY was Clinton’s conduct, described by Judge Wright as undermining the integrity fo the judicial system, so much better than Nixon’s. Unless you can explain that, you have no case. And keep in mind, Clinton also used governemtn agencies for partisan poltical purposes.
BTW, if you can’t answer or don’t know, we can just let this die. My Diogenes-like quest for some with perspective on Nixon continues.
“…so much better than Nixon’s.”
Ah, you shifty one. I never said that Clinton’s behavior was “so much better” than Nixon’s. I said that of the two reprehensible scenarios Nixon’s is demonstrably worse because of the scale and scope of the abuse and ultimately the damage he did to the political culture of America.
Clinton lied under oath and pressured others to lie as well, according the articles of impeachment against him. If you want to characterize that as the judge does as undermiing the integrity of judicial system, fine.
Nixon not only lied to investigators and pressured other people to lie to investigators, he ordered all manner of malfeasance well beyond that. He endeavored to thwart the Constitution by using his power to fire the special invetigator, destory evidence, defy subpeonas, wiretap political enemies and on and on. Did you not read the articles of impeachment against him? It includes this little gem:
*endeavouring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States;
and this:
*He misused the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and other executive personnel, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, by directing or authorizing such agencies or personnel to conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to national security,
and this:
*He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, authorized and permitted to be maintained a secret investigative unit within the office of the President,
and this:
*In disregard of the rule of law, he knowingly misused the executive power by interfering with agencies of the executive branch, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Criminal Division, and the Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, of the Department of Justice, and the Central Intelligence Agency, in violation of his duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
You simply cannot compare the scope and scale of Clinton’s malfesance to Nixon’s. Nixon wins hands down. And his actions and ultimate downfall were definitely a watershed in modern American politics.
And might I add, your original assertion was the what Nixon was no bad but no big deal because other presidents have done it. But you have only mentioned two presidents, Clinton and the current Bush, both of whom came after Nixon, obviously, and only of which seems to support your central argument. You have to come up with a lot more than 1 president to argue that Nixon’s actions were run of the mill because others did it.
And, of course, you have yet to address the essentially amoral nature of such a standard of judgement.
Well, I guess I agree Nixon a little / somewhat worse (not run of the mill) but evidently not as bad overall as you do. This is all obviously an unprovable point either way.
And yes I showed a bipartisan representation of later Presidential skullduggery. Mainly because thats what’s most readily available on the Internet. You may assume if you wish that all other presidents were pristine and pure. I believe they were all about the same.